Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    It is always morally permissible to bring about the best ... — Carmelics
    Home/Consequentialism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is always morally permissible to bring about the best outcome.

    Consequentialism
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The Compelling Idea holds that one always has most reason to desire the best state of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It can never be right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a better one.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bernard Williams argued that certain actions are constitutive of personal integrity, and morality cannot require their violation regardless of outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Requiring an agent to perform acts that sever their deepest commitments destroys the very self that consequentialism purports to benefit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, some outcomes remain impermissible to bring about because the cost falls on the agent's identity, not merely their preferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Deontological constraints, as Nagel and Foot argued, reflect agent-relative reasons that are not reducible to impersonal aggregative rankings of states of affairs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If agent-relative reasons are irreducibly real, then 'best outcome' defined impersonally fails to capture the full moral landscape of permissibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Consequentialism

    Related

    Bernard Williams argued that certain actions are constitutive of personal integr...Deontological constraints, as Nagel and Foot argued, reflect agent-relative reas...If agent-relative reasons are irreducibly real, then 'best outcome' defined impe...It can never be right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a better one.
    +3 moreShow less
    Requiring an agent to perform acts that sever their deepest commitments destroys...The Compelling Idea holds that one always has most reason to desire the best sta...Therefore, some outcomes remain impermissible to bring about because the cost fa...

    Similar

    It is morally permissible to bring about and maintain a belief for whi...84%It is permissible to treat persons as means to our ends.82%Being moral is in every person's own best interests81%Happiness is the ultimate object of morality.80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: consequentializing
    View source passageHide passage
    But, of course, act-consequentialism is not a theory about what it is right to prefer, but rather a theory about what it is right to do. Nevertheless, we can charitably interpret Foot as assuming that the Compelling Idea is Most Reason to Desire. This idea in conjunction with her claim that it can never be right to prefer a worse state of affairs to a better one entails the thought that it is always morally permissible to bring about the best outcome, and this is the thought that she sought to
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit